Supreme Court turns away constitutional challenge to Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.
Supreme Court turns away constitutional challenge to Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.
The Supreme Court announced today that it would not hear a constitutional challenge to the government’s Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy, which bans gays from serving openly in the military. The case, Pietrangelo v. Gates, “stemmed from a lawsuit by 12 former service members who were discharged” under Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. A “federal appeals court in Boston threw out the suit,” but James E. Pietrangelo II, one of the 12 who filed the suit, “asked the Supreme Court to hear arguments in the case. Most of the rest of the group joined a brief asking the justices to defer reviewing the policy while the administration and lawmakers revisit it.” Reacting to the decision, Joe Sudbay at AmericaBlog writes, “It’s time for Obama to step up.” Yglesias adds, “if you’re upset about the status quo, don’t just get upset at the White House, get upset at your House member and your Senators too. Given an adequate volume of complaining, people will do the right thing here, but it’s obvious that there’s a kind of vague preference to just let this slide.”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
gays are just another in a very very long list of things that terrorize right wingers
June 8th, 2009 at 12:44 pmIt will happen…just like the right to marriage for all…
June 8th, 2009 at 12:46 pmClarification; Repeal of DADT Will happen, just like the right to marry for everyone…
June 8th, 2009 at 12:48 pmI think it was the right decision for SCOTUS to decline to hear on appeal. As a matter of policy, this seems best dealt with by the President and Congress at this point. With DOD’s support, I would hope that it will be dealt with quickly; however, it is such a right-wing hot-button that I doubt it will.
June 8th, 2009 at 12:53 pmI think its wrong they didn’t tackle it.
This is a juicy piece of litigation that is perfect for SCOTUS to be taking on…
Unfortunately as long as they are exceedingly RIGHT of center they will never work in a constitutional framework; instead they will be bought and paid for by the Republican fear machine.
June 8th, 2009 at 12:59 pmI don’t see this as being a judicial issue. Military rules aren’t handled the same way that civilian rights are. It’s better handled by Congress.
I want to see the right thing done, but if it’s not done in the right way, then the solution can be too easily reversed. If it’s determined by a judicial ruling, that might leave a lot of other loopholes that the military could work around to avoid practically implementing it.
June 8th, 2009 at 1:03 pmNobody wants to serve with homosexuals, not on the battlefield at least. Who the hell wants to be stuck in a foxhole with a homo? Your fellow soldiers all depend on eachother.
June 8th, 2009 at 1:04 pmReacting to the decision, Joe Sudbay at AmericaBlog writes, “It’s time for Obama to step up.”
AP radio news just reported that it was the obama admin that asked the court to NOT hear this case…
anything about that?
(*oooh! a ‘Preview’ button!
June 8th, 2009 at 1:06 pmhooray! now i can edit my comments that i usually dont know need fixed until AFTER i posted… i would rather have an ‘Edit’ function… but, oh well…)
hi im major mansworth and im straight
hi im private smith and im gay
(who cares!!)
June 8th, 2009 at 1:08 pmThe whole idea of DADT is childish. Are we so backward that we are the only nation to exclude Homosexuals from the military ? I think so. Is anyone aware that our translators, many fluent in Arabic were the ones pushed out ? Just when we needed them the most.
Sometimes, no, many times America is more 3rd world than 3rd world countries.
June 8th, 2009 at 1:08 pmA study commissioned by the Army found that, on the average, gays were better soldiers than straights. Needless to say, the Army quietly filed the report.
To me, this means that, if we could just get the straights out of the Army, we could really kick some butt.
Swine!
June 8th, 2009 at 1:08 pmOh, oh. Another Trollette’s Syndrome outbreak on aisle 7.
Quick. Someone hand me a fresh can of Troll-B-Gone®!
June 8th, 2009 at 1:09 pmJimmy # 7 – Both of my sons served and they could care less about a person’s sexual identity. Grow up !
June 8th, 2009 at 1:10 pmi think that amazing show of ignorance and bigotry should stand alone… no need to repeat it… please…
June 8th, 2009 at 1:10 pmJimmy, if you don’t show your Big Bucks while in the foxhole, I doubt any of the gays in there with you would have any sexual thoughts about or sexual behaviors toward you.
June 8th, 2009 at 1:11 pmI see Jimmy Small Balls is still scared to death of homosexuals
June 8th, 2009 at 1:16 pmListen to your kids, there is more acceptance toward all people than ever before. It gives me hope the world will get better.
June 8th, 2009 at 1:23 pmPeople who are concerned about everyone else’s sexual identity are usually unsure of their own….Please don’t reply, I don’t want to talk to you…
June 8th, 2009 at 1:37 pmJimmy Big Bucks Says:
Nobody wants to serve with homosexuals, not on the battlefield at least.
Citation please? These surveys directly from your imagination don’t add anything to the discussion. They just discredit your side. Maybe you should sit down and let some more intelligent conservatives take a crack at it, if you can find any.
I’d rather be in a foxhole (like we have those anymore) with a homosexual than with a psycho bigot like yourself. You might mistake me for an abortion doctor or something.
The last guy who got kicked out under DADT was well-liked by all of the people he served with. They all knew he was gay and didn’t care.
.
Proud Says:
This is a slap in the face to these brave soldiers by Obama. He could fix this today if he so chose, but apparently he could care less.
I think we looked at the military code relevant to this in detail in a previous thread. The military code as passed by Congress requires homosexuals to be kicked out. Obama could override it on a case-by-case basis by claiming that a given soldier had to be kept in as a national security issue. But that would allow him to repeatedly stretch the truth for every individual case. It’s best taken care of by revising the military code.
June 8th, 2009 at 1:51 pmI know you’re 100% right and I want to agree with you, but a large part of me just wishes the judiciary could have just taken care of this cleanly without the President having to burn much capital on such an inflammatory issue.
This would have been wrong for the Supreme Court to handle, but it probably would have kept the midterms from being another round of “OMG TEH GHEYS ARE DESTORYING OUR BASES”
June 8th, 2009 at 2:08 pmYou can’t fix this by executive order and you shouldn’t fix it by ‘judicial activism’. Unfortunately COngress is going to need to step up on this one. Maybe with the recently termed officers they’ll be compelled to take action.
June 8th, 2009 at 2:10 pmWow I’m shocked C4P hasn’t said anything stupid but I see Proud decided to take up his ridiculous argument. I think Bruce said it best:
I think we looked at the military code relevant to this in detail in a previous thread. The military code as passed by Congress requires homosexuals to be kicked out. Obama could override it on a case-by-case basis by claiming that a given soldier had to be kept in as a national security issue. But that would allow him to repeatedly stretch the truth for every individual case. It’s best taken care of by revising the military code.
June 8th, 2009 at 2:12 pmdeebaser Says:
…a large part of me just wishes the judiciary could have just taken care of this cleanly without the President having to burn much capital on such an inflammatory issue.
I admit that would be awesome, but it’s too much to hope for.
.
deebaser Says:
…it probably would have kept the midterms from being another round of “OMG TEH GHEYS ARE DESTORYING OUR BASES”
Heh heh, I’m in ur base humpin ur doodz.
June 8th, 2009 at 2:13 pmI love how conservatives always bring up relics of WWII battlefields where men were packed into fox holes as if serving combat in downtown Baghdad relies heavily on men and women buried with their heads popping up out of the ground.
Maybe I’m off base on this
June 8th, 2009 at 2:45 pmoh and i almost forgot to add… anybody that thinks being fired on by an enemy suddenly becomes some strangely erotic moment were men just strip down and have sex probably hasn’t served combat or paid any attention to those that do.
June 8th, 2009 at 2:49 pmRob Says:
I love how conservatives always bring up relics of WWII battlefields where men were packed into fox holes as if serving combat in downtown Baghdad relies heavily on men and women buried with their heads popping up out of the ground.
Wingnuts haven’t had a significant military volunteer presence since Korea. They’re all chickenhawks now. The last time any noticeable number of wingnuts were in military service they still had foxholes.
.
ConservativeForProgress Says:
The President has the authority to issue an executive order halting the operation of “don’t ask, don’t tell.” … So, why hasn’t Obama used this power?
He would have to write an executive order for every single discharged soldier, saying for each that keeping them on was a matter of critical national security importance. In most individual cases, that’s probably not entirely true – and only a Republican can lie that much that often.
I responded the same way earlier, and you just repeated yourself, ignoring it. You are a fcuktard.
June 8th, 2009 at 4:00 pmAs I understand the news, a lot of female soldiers are having trouble with overt sexual harassment and rape.
I guess “straights” have their problems too.
June 8th, 2009 at 4:47 pmThe Obama team asked the Supreme Court not to take up this case. AP reported:
The Supreme Court on Monday turned down a challenge to the Pentagon policy forbidding gays and lesbians from serving openly in the military, granting a request by the Obama administration.
June 8th, 2009 at 4:54 pmConservativeForProgress Says:
No, ElBruce, he wouldn’t. Have you actually read the paper from the military law experts, or are you just making up law on your own? What are your qualifications? Try reading the actual, draft executive order.
The problem with making these kinds of arguments on the Internet is that the person you’re arguing with has access to the Internet.
Bold added for clarity because you’re a moron.
June 8th, 2009 at 5:04 pmC4P are you stupid or something?! How many times have we gone over this?! If President Obama were to just repeal DADT GAYS CANNOT SERVE IN THE MILITARY!!!!!!!!!! What about that is so hard to believe?! The underlying law and the UCMJ need to be dealt with. My qualifications? I’m a freakin vet.
Why don’t you try reading what Bruce posted. Actually try reading your own source:
Congress grants the President authority to suspend the separation of
military members during any period of national emergency in which members of a
reserve component are serving involuntarily on active duty
Period of national emergency. Not a permanent fix.
This in
turn will make it easier to secure the passage of the Military Readiness Enhancement Act
(MREA) in Congress, which would repeal “don’t ask, don’t tell.” While it would be
optimal to see lawmakers embrace repeal by passing MREA, it may not be politically
feasible to do so, despite overwhelming public support and Democratic control of
Congress.
They even acknowledge Congress would have to deal with it.
Read the rest of it moron.
June 8th, 2009 at 6:19 pmI heard the same arguments for why women shouldn’t be in the military—once per arguer. It’s ridiculous to be sitting in a room watching the Western hemisphere, being a target in the case of nuclear war, and hearing some stupid argument about why women shouldn’t be in the military. Because you had to be somewhat intelligent to have that job, no one was stupid enough to repeat the sex in the foxhole argument.
It appears to be the army and marines that will have the hardest time integrating, because of their hyper-combat-machismo and the low intelligence and illiteracy common among the grunts.
I agree that this should be worked out between the president, Congress, and military leaders. The integration needs to be done right so that anti-gay harassment is punished.
June 8th, 2009 at 10:11 pm